DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

Differentiated Case Management

Nancy E. Gist, Director

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Every case that goes to court imposes a unique set of

demands on court resources. With the increasing volume

and diversity of criminal and civil dockets in most

courts, and the broad range of case types and case processing requirements presented, the traditional first-in/

first-out, one-track-fits-all approach to case management

is no longer either feasible or desirable. Differentiated

Case Management (DCM) is a technique courts can use

to tailor the case management process to the requirements of individual cases. DCM provides a mechanism

for processing each case in accordance with the

timeframe and judicial system resources required. Thus,

each case can move as expeditiously as possible toward

disposition, rather than waiting in line.

Background

In July 1987 the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) of

the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, awarded a grant to EMT, a nonprofit organization

based in California, to develop and provide technical assistance for DCM. Under this grant, DCM demonstration projects were implemented at five State trial courts

in 1988. Responsibility for continuation of the DCM

project was assumed by American University’s School

of Public Affairs in July 1989, aided by a BJA award for

technical assistance to the BJA demonstration sites and

assessment and documentation of DCM’s key elements

and results. Four additional demonstration sites were

funded in 1989. American University’s DCM grant was

active through September 1992. American University

currently provides limited technical assistance to courts

interested in implementing DCM through a technical

assistance grant funded by BJA.

Key Features of DCM Model

The DCM model offers three key features:

❑ Development of multiple case processing

tracks with different events and timeframes

that reflect the range of case processing

characteristics and requirements presented by

the caseload—Shortly after a case is filed, it is

assigned to the applicable track based on criteria

developed by the local judicial system. Some

courts have only three tracks—simple, standard,

and complex; other courts have six or more tracks

specific to that court and subtracks as needed.

❑ Improved organization of court events to

ensure that each scheduled event occurs at a

time and in a manner that promotes case

disposition—Court events such as preliminary

hearings, motions, and evidentiary hearings are

not automatically scheduled; instead, they are

scheduled only for those tracks in which they are

appropriate. For example, a predisposition

conference would be scheduled for a major drug

possession case assigned to a “complex” track,

but would not be scheduled for a simple drug

trafficking case assigned to a “simple” track.

Only events that contribute to the case disposition

process are scheduled, and each scheduled event

is designed to promote case disposition. Thus,

events that do not contribute to case resolution

(such as pro forma calendar calls) are eliminated,

and events that do contribute to case disposition

(such as pretrial conferences) are scheduled at

times when issues can be defined or disposition

might reasonably be expected to occur.

❑ Close case monitoring—Monitoring individual

cases both ensures that each case stays within
2

track procedures and timeframes and identifies

unanticipated problems that may warrant track

reassignment.

Benefits of DCM

Benefits attributed to DCM, as determined by demonstration site experience, include:

❑ Significantly greater scheduling certainty and

more efficient use of resources, including:

– Reduced disposition times.

– Greater judicial productivity.

– Fewer continuances.

– Lower witness costs, including less police

overtime.

– Reduced pretrial detention costs.

– Fewer bench warrants due to failures to

appear.

❑ Increased coordination and cooperation among

justice agencies, including:

– More efficient coordination of individuals

and tasks.

– Earlier discovery and other information exchanges among attorneys.

– Earlier availability of information needed for

accurate case scheduling (for instance, the

need for an interpreter and pre-sentence

investigations).

❑ Improved quality of the judicial process,

including:

– Better attorney preparation due to more

reliable court schedules.

– Fewer witnesses “lost” due to delays or

continuances.

– Improved public respect for the judicial

process.

DCM Implementation

According to the courts that implemented DCM, its success generally includes the following prerequisites:

❑ Commitment of major players in the judicial

process (i.e., judges, prosecutors, and defense

attorneys) to developing a system that differentiates among cases for processing purposes.

❑ Leadership of a key judge throughout the development and implementation of the DCM system

and of an experienced administrator assigned to

coordinate the effort.

❑ Willingness on the part of the court and the participating agencies to reorganize existing staff responsibilities, if necessary, and to dedicate senior staff, at

least initially, to screen cases at the time of filing.

❑ An information system that supports the operation,

monitoring, and evaluation of the DCM system.

For a large volume of cases, an automated information system may be necessary, but many

jurisdictions have found a personal computerbased system to be adequate, at least initially.

How Much Will DCM Cost?

Budgeting for DCM implementation requires evaluation

of existing resources. Many jurisdictions simply reorganize existing staff and redefine staff functions as necessary to support the requirements of the DCM system.

For example, a court clerk might begin tracking the different types of cases on the court docket or monitoring

cases proceeding on a given track. Costs specifically attributable to the DCM system include the need for adequate staff, management, and information resources

both within the court and among participating agencies.

The actual costs of implementing DCM will therefore be

determined by the preimplementation adequacy of these

resources.

What are DCM Services?

Limited, no-cost telephone technical assistance that provides general information and referrals is available to

courts interested in implementing the DCM system. For

technical assistance, contact American University,

School of Public Affairs, at the telephone number and

address listed below.

The publications Differentiated Case Management Implementation Guide, Differentiated Case Management Program Brief, and BJA Information File include all BJA and

other Office of Justice Programs agency publications that

pertain to DCM and are available from the BJA Clearinghouse. See “For Further Information” below.

What Courts Already Have DCM?

Courts currently practicing DCM include:

❑ BJA Demonstration Projects:

Virtually all of the demonstration courts that

introduced DCM to their criminal caseloads have

since extended it to their civil cases, and vice

versa.

– Differentiated Case Management

Berrien County (St. Joseph), Michigan:

Criminal cases, based on an early civil DCM

program; later expanded to include a fivetrack drug court, including a treatment track.
3

Camden County, New Jersey: Criminal and

civil cases.

Pierce County (Tacoma), Washington:

Initially drug cases; later expanded to property cases, then to sexual assault cases, and

then to the entire criminal docket.

Ramsey County (St. Paul), Minnesota:

Initially civil cases; now, also criminal cases.

Wayne County (Detroit), Michigan: Criminal

cases.

– Expedited Drug Case Management

(applying DCM specifically to drug cases, to

move them as expeditiously as possible

toward disposition)

Middlesex County (New Brunswick), New

Jersey: Drug cases.

Multnomah County (Portland), Oregon: Drug

and property cases, including a track for drug

treatment court cases.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Court of

Common Pleas: Originally, criminal

nonjury cases; now, all criminal cases.

❑ Other Jurisdictions Adopting the BJA DCM

Demonstration Model:

– Federal Jurisdictions

Ten pilot districts in the Federal Court

system.

– Statewide Jurisdictions

State of California (civil cases).

District of Columbia (drug cases).

State of Maryland (civil cases).

– Local Jurisdictions

Jefferson County (Birmingham), Alabama:

Civil cases.

Pima County (Tucson), Arizona: Civil cases.

Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida

(Orlando): Criminal cases.

New Castle County (Wilmington), Delaware:

Drug cases, including drug court treatment

track.

Anne Arundel County (Annapolis), Maryland: Domestic relations cases.

Baltimore City, Maryland: Drug cases,

including drug court treatment track, and civil

cases.

Baltimore County, Maryland: Civil cases.

Montgomery County, Maryland: Criminal

and civil cases.

For Further Information

For additional information about DCM, contact:

Prosecution and Adjudication Branch

Bureau of Justice Assistance

633 Indiana Avenue NW.

Washington, DC 20531

Tel: 1–202–616–3218

School of Public Affairs

The American University

4400 Massachusetts Avenue NW.

Brandywine, Suite 660

Washington, DC 20016–8159

Tel: 1–202–885–2875

Bureau of Justice Assistance Clearinghouse

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

Tel: 1–800–688–4252

Fax: 1–301–251–5212

Bulletin Board System: 1–301–738–8895

Internet: look@ncjrs.aspensys.com

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center

1–800–421–6770

FS000061

November 1995
4

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Washington, D.C. 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/BJA

Permit No. G-91